4 ms·

Per United States law, imagery/art/music/text/photography generated by non-human means (such as machinery, animals, or generative AI) cannot hold copyright. ht

Per United States law, imagery/art/music/text/photography generated by non-human means (such as machinery, animals, or generative AI) cannot hold copyright. https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-auth... Section 306 on page 7. I'm not sure how it'll hold up in law to claim copyright violations against something that wasn't created by a person. It'll really depend on the lawyers and judge's interpretation of written law. But I'm curious to see what comes of this.

zanfr 3y ago
hmm then it meants generative music, as in say brian eno's experiments aren't copyrighted?
- iwontberude 3y ago
  I guess so! Good point.
- jimbobimbo 3y ago
  Did he ever use AI to generate music? As opposed to crafting and using an algorithm, in which case the computer is just an instrument, like synthesizer is.
sgt101 3y ago
So on your interpretation if I photocopy a book and then sell the photocopies to my friends there is no infringment? I don't think so, but hey, a photocopier is a machine and it generated the book so should be ok!
- DigitallyFidget 3y ago
  That isn't my interpretation, nor did I ever make that statement. That IS infact a valid definition of copyright infringement. The source material is copyrighted and you're making a literal copy of it via photocopier. I don't know how you twisted the logic on that to conclude that would not be infringement. However, it does also depend what you do with the photocopies, merely photocopying a book and keeping it privately is on par with copying a music CD as a backup. The infringement occurs when you're reusing it as your own, such as selling, publishing, or broadcasting the copyrighted material. What I stated is that generated art such as images/music/photos that are by a non human cannot be copyrighted. A photocopier isn't generating anything, it's a copy, it's replication and it isn't generating a new thing. My personal opinion is that AI generated artwork should be treated as equal to fanart when generating copyright influenced material.

zanfr 3y ago

hmm then it meants generative music, as in say brian eno's experiments aren't copyrighted?

iwontberude 3y ago
I guess so! Good point.
jimbobimbo 3y ago
Did he ever use AI to generate music? As opposed to crafting and using an algorithm, in which case the computer is just an instrument, like synthesizer is.

sgt101 3y ago

So on your interpretation if I photocopy a book and then sell the photocopies to my friends there is no infringment? I don't think so, but hey, a photocopier is a machine and it generated the book so should be ok!

DigitallyFidget 3y ago
That isn't my interpretation, nor did I ever make that statement. That IS infact a valid definition of copyright infringement. The source material is copyrighted and you're making a literal copy of it via photocopier. I don't know how you twisted the logic on that to conclude that would not be infringement. However, it does also depend what you do with the photocopies, merely photocopying a book and keeping it privately is on par with copying a music CD as a backup. The infringement occurs when you're reusing it as your own, such as selling, publishing, or broadcasting the copyrighted material. What I stated is that generated art such as images/music/photos that are by a non human cannot be copyrighted. A photocopier isn't generating anything, it's a copy, it's replication and it isn't generating a new thing. My personal opinion is that AI generated artwork should be treated as equal to fanart when generating copyright influenced material.